It's not meant to be a rigorous analysis. It's just playful editorial snark because people read the paper over their coffee every morning and enjoy a mix of tones. A little "trouble brewing in Prussia" here, a little "lolz 'airplanes'!" there, and then a whole new batch of stuff to read and enjoy tomorrow.
you can say the same thing about most opinion sections today! the nytimes still gives a platform to total fools this way — proliferating diversity of thought I suppose
People often point out how ridiculous these projections turned out to be, but seemingly nobody challenges their reason for existing.